add_requirement

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a write operation. It does not say whether a project link is required, whether duplicates are prevented, what happens when projectId is omitted, or what the response contains. It does state the MoSCoW vocabulary, but that duplicates the schema enum.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an optional linking parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it what the side effects are, whether a project must pre-exist, or how this differs from bulk import.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description expands the priority enum into MoSCoW terminology, but adds no meaning for title, description, or the optional projectId linking behavior, so it sits at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Record') with a precise resource ('product requirement') and names the priority scheme. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_requirement, list_requirements, or import_requirements, but the add-vs-update/list contrast is reasonably inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than update_requirement, import_requirements, or add_user_story, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must exist) are given. Usage is only implied by the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.